Until the other day I associated with the Gaïté Lyrique with music & sophisticated light and sound shows; last year, among many others, the venue featured the inimitable Alice Phoebe Lou and a fifth annual music-film festival (F.A.M.E). So it was really good to see Adrien M. & Claire B’s digitally-generated Faire Corps (“All Together”) installation – material sculpture, virtual visual, public and performance interaction, sound, music and environments.
Even more through-provoking, in some ways, than the Faire Corps installation – which is proving a big attraction – was to hear Jos Auzende, Gaïté Lyrique’s artistic programmer, take the opportunity of the Faire Corps opening to clearly place “digital” in the context of culture and creative achievement.
Nearly 10 years ago, the city of Paris re-inaugurated the historic Gaïté Lyrique – Jacques Offenbach was once its director and Diaghelev started his Ballets Russes there – as a “center for digital art and culture”, without, I think, knowing what that could mean.
Now, Auzende seems to say, just as we all see Fantasia as the achievement of Walt Disney animators and storytellers working, say, in a “pre-empire Americanization culture”, not just as the result of applying color-film technology, so we should see that the achievement and interest in digitally generated work such Adrien M. & Claire B.’s lies not in how, but in where, when, for whom they have re-invented or appropriated digital technology to make it work.
Taking a stand for cultural context as the primary lens through which to look at esthetic achievement where contemporary digital technology is involved seems to me really challenging.
For music, for example, no matter how it is generated, we take the centrality of creation and culture for granted. “Digital music” means “music generated using digital technology”, not “music that is (somehow) digital”; it is indeed hard to think of any music generated in any way that is not essentially viewed and critiqued through its cultural context.
But, when it comes to “digital art”, the same casual assumption of cultural primariness is not true. People do often mean “art that is digital”, dropping culture all together and identifying the creation with the technology the creators used to achieve it.
The tendency to squeeze creation and culture into the tool is due, partly, I think, to intense commercial promotion of digitalized stuff (saleable) and digital uses (rentable), of course. But more especially, I think, digital technology is seen to be and is presented as, a competitor to humans.
Contemporary digital technology simulates human physical and mental movement: repetitive gestures such as driving or abstract processes such as judgment. Most funded digital R&D in industry and entertainment (and a lot of institutionally-funded Middle and high-brow art) turns around substituting digital technology for (saleable) movement and behaviors: slicing off and splicing up bits of recorded human movement and converting it into a saleable catalogue of products, services, tasks and processes – think consumer-service robots, virtual reality video, micro-targeted advertising, automatic public security identification.
It is not just difficult to get people to look at digital technology (or any technology for that matter) through the lens of cultural achievement. Looking at anything is to betray critical interest. Looking at digital technology through a culture – from where, when, for whom – is automatically “political”: what kind of cultural context generates a market for automatic public facial recognition; what kind of people systematically mistake the mediums for messages and vice versa?
In terms of intention, achievements and content, in Faire Corps, Jos Auzende chose a good talking piece for her speech.
As creators, Adrien M. & Claire B. declare an intention to “resist corporate colonialism”, inciting creators and audiences alike to remember both that digital technology is just technology and that, just as for other technologies, who controls and who uses digital determines why and how it gets used.
Adrien M. & Claire B. take digital technology use a step further than, say, a savvy contemporary choreographer such as Mourad Merzouki would do. Comparison of Merzouki’s dance-performance Pixel and Adrien M. & Claire B.’s sound-movement-performance Equinoxe speaks to their will to move away from technology as show-enhancement and -support to technology as sensory interaction with the show (without its becoming virtual reality). Pixel’s wow-me tech stuff was created by Adrien M. & Claire B.
Overall, each of the different parts of the Faire Corps installation, much like the Equinoxe performance piece, emphasizes sensory interactions with its onlookers. But each of its magic lanterns, its pools, patterns and projections suggests increased potential creative interface and esthetic interest in available technology.
Auzende’s Gaïté Lyrique’s approach to “digital art and culture” come in the context of a recent change of management – the current energetic director, Laëtitia Stagnara, was appointed only at the end of 2018. She has apparently determined to use Gaïté Lyrique’s existing noos: Jos Auzende, for example, is the originator of the theater’s popular children’s arts workshop Les Voyages du Capitaine Futur, billed, unsurprisingly, as “art taming technology”. Stagnara was formerly in charge of “digital development” at Cité des sciences et de l'industrie (La Villette). La Villette does a notably good job of getting past wow-me promotion of amazing (must have) technology to actually popularize science and technical achievement.
My hat is off to Jos Auzende, Laëtitia Stagnara and the esthetic team at Gaïté Lyrique.
Thank you for this brilliant post and all you do for poetry.
Posted by: Olivia | November 26, 2020 at 12:54 PM